Forum:Bureaucrat issue
There's a time and place for serious stuff to take precedence over my madness... That time is now. Right, so, following my "frozen" request for bureaucrat rights, I've come to the conclusion that said rights must have a "need" over "qualification" for some strange reason. Prime demonstration . Also, after looking through here, I noticed something peculiar... Sam 3010 did not have to ask for his bureaucrat rights, he was given them (before you all ask me for mine, it's here, I had my name changed). In all fairness, I propose a "re-vote" of everyone's rights based upon this "need of rights" that seems to be floating about. Any objections? 02:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :Yea, I agree with you only on the rights that weren't voted, I won't agree with you on all votes just because you feel you were rejected, the "needs of rights" was just an opinion of some users not the whole reason you weren't promoted. We could use a re-vote of certain's people including me, the reason I received the position of Bureaucrat after being an admin is because there was no other active admin that could grant rights at the time and not much userbase for starters, I would also argue that I deserved it, and you weren't active at the time to oppose my nomination. And the issue with Tech? Are you kidding me? You get mad because I gave a trusted user the ability to make some proposed changes to badges, for 30 minutes? Well, go ahead. Also, please list the people you think need the revote and create my RfBC page, it was your idea after all. 02:44, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :Of course, you are proposing this, so it needs support from more users before it gets green-lit. 02:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't see a reason in a re-vote for this user since the wiki creator had entrusted the rights to him for being very active and user friendly. I also believe that this issue should have been brought up by another crat (talking about KazMx). 03:19, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :::And how does the opinion of one person outweigh the opinion of the community? 03:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :::So a "trusted user of the wiki", after 3 months on here (and 1 ban), still thinks that the "wiki creator" has absolute powers?! Amazing. 09:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC) Oppose reconfirming everyone's rights. People should only be given tools if they need them. These aren't some sort of status symbol, they are a toolkit. If people don't need the tools in the kit, there is no reason for them to have them. That being said, a "need" doesn't constitute someone spending all of their time here and doing everything possible. A need can be reporting vandals once and a while - such a candidate has an obvious use for the tools. Also, trusting whether or not a user can handle the rights is another major thing. I'm not really convinced that Sam's recent action has broken the wiki in any way, but I do kinda disagree with it. I personally don't see the need for temporarily sysopping someone. Why not just do the job yourself? If the candidate could be trusted with sysop tools, I'd imagine that they'd have passed an RfA by now. Also, I would be open to "confirmation" RfPs for those of us who did not "earn" our rights via community vote. That includes me, since I never went through an official vote (though all three members of the community at that time supported me). Anyways, just my 2c 03:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :Let's be honest here, if we consider how much mods/admins/crats have used their tools since their election, most people in here would need to get demoted. And regarding your rights, you passed your election with 7/0 support votes less than one month ago, you are the last person that needs reconfirmation here. 09:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't know what interest are in play here and I couldn't care less. If a crat/admin/mod/rb or anyone is doing something that affects negatively in the wiki, he/she is demoted. Before the wiki was as big as it is now, usually I take the decisions of who was promoted or not. Why? Because the only entrusted user that stay since that times was me. If anyone thinks that there is someone doing a bad job, report him to the proper people and he or he will have a proper trial. ::*@Nystus you know that a Crat is more than just a Admin with promoting rights, and you insulting and treating people the way you have been conducting yourself is not going to help you. ::*@Zelgadis many users were promoted before you were even in the wiki. If you had a problem with someone being promoted you should said so at the time. Now if any user with "rights" is using his/her rights counter-productively open a forum and discuss it. - KazMx (Message me! ) 19:21, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Reread my message please. I'm not having problems with anyone here, just stating an obvious fact: most rlb/mods/adms/crats are not using their tools. Whether this should lead to demotions or not it's not for me to decide. 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::Ok, thanks for clearing that up. But in your opinion what should be done about that? And, especially which people? - KazMx (Message me! ) 20:02, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::It's not in my style to make names. It's an easy obtainable information tho, check for example the or the . If new nominations fail in the fear that the candidate may not have a need for new tools, which is understandable, I can't see why users that have already demonstrated they don't use such tools should be left there. Just as a disclaimer, again, this is not a personal attack against anyone, just stating the obvious follow-up to the "new rules" regarding rights on this wiki. 12:42, June 5, 2011 (UTC) :::In my defense, I use the rollback button. It helps a lot! 20:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :::: Well, as much as I'd like to defend my position, I think someone more active would be more suitable for this situation. I may check frequently, do frequent updates, but not enough for a Administrator. D3Reap3R Is this considered to be over with or what's the status on the situation, this didn't get anywhere. 23:38, June 14, 2011 (UTC)